extensively. could you respond to the government's argument? >> absolutely. >> that the two statutes need to be read separately? >> judge paez, you have it exactly right. let me set out exactly what the argument is. that the president is claiming a sweeping power, essentially to set aside the ina. in fact, the president refers to, quote, an absolute right to ban any group or anybody that's in the brief in page three. if you read it that way, if you listen to what mr. wall said, you are giving the president the anlt to take a magic eraser to the entire united states code with respect to immigration and nullify anything because of this 1182 provision. that can't possibly be what the statute is about. there are four problems with the statutory argument. one is what you were just referring to, swrunlg paez, about 1152, nationality based discrimination. three other things. congress finally reticulated